- Pronouns
- he/him
The only thing for sure it’s that it will be a hit in Japan, everywhere else depends on Nintendo but I think this is the best they have been positioned since GB to GBA to make a great successor.
Nintendo says the transition to its next console wants to be ‘as smooth as possible’
- Thread starter Phantom Thief
- Replies 136
- Views 8,703
- Start date
- Industry News
Yes, that was a typo. But I very much disagree that was the thing that was praised. People didn't take to it at all. No games with that style ever sold well on Wii U, and Nintendo abandoned that quickly. The only thing that saw any minor praise was the off-screen play, which was original a pretty minor part of their focus, and ended up being the only thing people really wanted to use the tablet for (and surely influenced the direction they went with the Switch).
I don't see how those games are things people wanted. Those games were successful, but they are a tiny fragment of the industry. Revolving your entire console for a generation around an idea means that the majority of the public have to have interest in the concept. Basing everything around a sub-genre that has its niche is a disaster.
As has been said: As long as you make sure that Switch 2 is part of the same ecosystem as Switch 1, it will be a smooth ass transition. When I get my Switch 2 on launch day and connect it to the internet, I want to be able to download my digitally purchased Smash Bros, Mario Kart 8 Deluxe and Animal Crossing, also all the indie-games I bought. And when I put in my Xenoblade 2-cartridge, I expect it to work, too. Same user account, friends list is automatically imported to new Switch, eShop money is not bound to my Switch 1. Booya! Smoothest nextgen transition ever.
Hopefully a mod can update the thread title. It's still thread-worthy news that Nintendo talks about their nextgen at all.
Hopefully a mod can update the thread title. It's still thread-worthy news that Nintendo talks about their nextgen at all.
Yeah. That's not wrong.
Sony and Microsoft made that mistake once, too.
However Nintendo somehow managed to be several times in this mega success to fuck-up to mega success cycle.
Staying on top is always a little harder.
- Pronouns
- He/Him
I said as much in the post you replied to that it was a good idea but not one that could carry an entire hardware platform. Replying like I didn't say that is odd.
Also, read NintendoLand reviews and find me one where they find asymmetric multiplayer to be a bad thing. Even some of the most curmudgeonly reviewers liked it; James Stephanie Sterling, for example, seems to have saved all their bad words about it talking up the lifeless overworld with nothing to do in it and Monita (OH WOW, did reviewers ever universally loathe Monita, perhaps rightly so) and called it a proper game to highlight all of the GamePad's potential (that was later squandered). And feel free to check Dead by Daylight's player base figures before we say people don't take to asymmetric multiplayer gaming.
That Nintendo never did much with it after the first year speaks more to the fact that, as a concept, it could not support a vast library of games that highlight the feature, and I understand that because (to repeat myself a 3rd time in case it's overlooked again) it's a nice bit of gameplay design if you can use it in an offline setting, but it's not one that can sustain an entire platform. And that's honestly how it should be: use features of hardware when they make good design sense to. Just like how not every game had to be like 1-2-Switch.
Generally speaking, I still think that crazy Nintendo innovation should focus on the software side, and still deliver something quite "standardized" on the hardware front. The switch is a good example, with something still comparable with other platforms input wise, but crazy things like labo and ringfit from the software.
Even more now that they only have one platform, they shouldn't take big gamble on hardware, as it would be hard to sustain a new WiiU like crappy unpopular hardware without a backup one...
You can have crazy and fun "gimmicks", but that should be on top of a more traditional machine, not at the expense of it.
Even more now that they only have one platform, they shouldn't take big gamble on hardware, as it would be hard to sustain a new WiiU like crappy unpopular hardware without a backup one...
You can have crazy and fun "gimmicks", but that should be on top of a more traditional machine, not at the expense of it.
I'm honestly surprised someone noticed it. Glad you liked it.
- Pronouns
- He/him
I think Nintendo finally realized that they cannot take anything for granted when it comes to launching new hardware.
The big thing that excites me about the prospects of the next system is everything that the NSO has built up (mainly retro games) transferring over to the new system day 1. Hopefully we are long past the drip feed days and restarting at every new console with just 20 NES games is a thing of the past.
The big thing that excites me about the prospects of the next system is everything that the NSO has built up (mainly retro games) transferring over to the new system day 1. Hopefully we are long past the drip feed days and restarting at every new console with just 20 NES games is a thing of the past.
They should launch with a big Zelda, and I used to think they were going to, but I'm less and less convinced, and that's a shame. The next Zelda will probably come very far into switch 2 lifecycle.
But this time dragon quest at least could have a good timing.
But this time dragon quest at least could have a good timing.
Yeah, Zelda will probably be the last of the big Nintendo franchises to hit the Switch 2 (at least in terms of a new entry- can't say I'd be too surprised to see remakes and other Zelda spin-offs hit the Switch 2 even early on).
They should definitely have Animal Crossing & Mario Kart within the first year or so. Also, given Pokemon's release schedule over the past decade, it makes sense for Gen X to release in 2025, probably around or after the Switch 2 releases. Could see it being a Switch 2 title (though still playable on Switch 1, like how Gold & Silver could be played on Game Boy).
I’m frankly not sure why this is even a concern at this point in time or something even worth mentioning unless you think Miyamtoto is going to pull a Palpatine.
This has a lot of "Miyamoto ruined Paper Mario" energy.
Incorrect.
Show me where a successor console that was simply more powerful, without any other gimmick, that was as successful as its predecessor (or more)
SNES is not a good example. It had shoulder buttons, which expanded gameplay potential enough to make gaming more complex.
PS2 had the dualshock and DVDs which allowed for bigger 3D worlds you could traverse more easily.
3DS faltered because it was simply more powerful and 3D didn't justify the upgrade.
PS5 is faltering because developers cannot yet justify the upgrade with compelling enough software.
Switch 2 will have to justify itself by bringing something else beyond a "better" Switch. Gameplay possibilities must be expanded upon while respecting the past.
(I think there may be an outcome where we are both right in the sense that if you go powerful enough you can host games which Switch 1 could never do. Having games like Witcher 3 on Switch make that argument harder to argue.)
- Pronouns
- he/him
PS4 and GBA.
Apologies, I should have been clearer.
GBA fits the (powerful enough to allow gameplay you couldn't before) mold. It is to Gameboy what SNES is to NES.
PS4 is an interesting case because it has no backward compatibility and is very similar in experience compared to the PS3. With it we have to consider that "success" is a zero-sum game and we have to take competitors into account. PS4's competitors were a stumbling Xbox One (that did PS4 only worse) and the commercial failure of the Wii U. In that environment, a solid, steady console that does PS3, but better was able to be successful. But we also know it thudded in Japan.
Switch 2 cannot say that it has two terrible competitors. Xbox series is solid and PS5 has great potential that has yet to be justified. Most likely Sony will start to justify it by the time Switch 2 arrives. Nintendo's best bet is not simply a "more powerful" Switch, but a Switch that has enough power to host different kinds of gameplay experiences or a strong enough additive gimmick that allows for even more diverse games.
PS5 is failing to live up to its potential, even if you remove the supply issues. The problem is largely software. Not only tepid software sales, but the amount of exclusive software that justifies the box's existence distinct from it's predecessor. That case should be made closer to launch and I would argue we still haven't seen that critical mass achieved yet.
Everyone knows when you have the most supply constrained console that may never reach demand in the entire generation you should double down on exclusives and cut out your 100+ million install base on previous gen hardware.
- Pronouns
- He/Him
But I thought it was the fastest-selling PS hardware ever worldwide*?
Sometimes, it feels like PS5 is Schrödinger’s console, in a liminal state of simultaneously being a massive success and suffering underwhelming sales due to significant impediment.
(* acknowledging it’s selling cumulatively well worldwide while struggling in specific markets far more than others)
I don't see how not making a console more desirable is a winning strategy.
Rather than spending money on exclusive software for the supply-constrained console, Sony is doubling-down by selling an even more expensive and unattainable add-on with exclusive software before they establish a slate of must-play exclusive software on the base system. I just don't get it.
But I digress, we are getting off-topic.
All I am saying is that Nintendo needs to do more than simply Switch + power. They need enough power to make Switch 2 different enough or a decent gimmick that provides additional gameplay options.
Only for the first few months. It fell behind the PS4 around middle of last year because of stock issues. Launch aligned, it's behind the Switch as well now.
Switch Next can just be iterative in terms of the Nvidia chipset while introducing crazy new peripherals, like VR/AR goggles and the Crank Con, which will enable at least 48 sweet Playdate ports.
I mean, those peripherals could have been integrated into the Switch, too... (and the VR was, after a fashion)
I feel like Nintendo should have packaged more crazy Cons with accompanying novelty software suites. Ring Fit is an immensely successful example. Labo (though fascinating) might have muddled it a bit too much with the DIY aspect. Most of their other Controller tomfoolery has been of the retro NSO variety.
Third-parties could have gotten in on the game, too. Taito could have had a Paddle Game collection with Paddle Con. SNK could have bundled a Clicky Con with the Neo Geo Pocket collection. Or a Rotary Con with the SNK Collection. Sega or Namco could have attempted some sort of low-cost Joy Con-powered Gun controller or vehicle stick/wheel.
Anyway, it's difficult to see where they could/would go with a successor, aside from Joy Con with crazier functionality or some sort of wireless docking, which could mayyybe facilitate the return of asymmetrical multiplayer (without requiring two Switches)?
Yes, I am nostalgic for the Wii U. This is the hill upon which I will die. Say what you will, but the Gamepad was way more comfortable than the Switch, and NintendoLand was a goddamned revelation. And should have heralded a revolution, like Wii Sports!
History will mourn the Wii U. Well, it would have, if the majority of its games hadn't been ported to the Switch...
I mean, those peripherals could have been integrated into the Switch, too... (and the VR was, after a fashion)
I feel like Nintendo should have packaged more crazy Cons with accompanying novelty software suites. Ring Fit is an immensely successful example. Labo (though fascinating) might have muddled it a bit too much with the DIY aspect. Most of their other Controller tomfoolery has been of the retro NSO variety.
Third-parties could have gotten in on the game, too. Taito could have had a Paddle Game collection with Paddle Con. SNK could have bundled a Clicky Con with the Neo Geo Pocket collection. Or a Rotary Con with the SNK Collection. Sega or Namco could have attempted some sort of low-cost Joy Con-powered Gun controller or vehicle stick/wheel.
Anyway, it's difficult to see where they could/would go with a successor, aside from Joy Con with crazier functionality or some sort of wireless docking, which could mayyybe facilitate the return of asymmetrical multiplayer (without requiring two Switches)?
Yes, I am nostalgic for the Wii U. This is the hill upon which I will die. Say what you will, but the Gamepad was way more comfortable than the Switch, and NintendoLand was a goddamned revelation. And should have heralded a revolution, like Wii Sports!
History will mourn the Wii U. Well, it would have, if the majority of its games hadn't been ported to the Switch...
Last edited:
Asia is the only region where PS5 software sales aren't very good. They are fine if not outright great everywhere else.
- Pronouns
- He/Him
But is the ~3-4mil hardware unit difference that make up that shortfall so critical that cross-gen should continue indefinitely as was just suggested?
These outlets won't correct it in their articles and most people will quote that mistranslation years down the line.
If they manage to ship 18m PS5 this fiscal year and keep up a similar production going forward, supply constraints won't be a problem for too long. Current scarcity were due to a meager 11,5m shipment and not unprecedent demand.
Nintendojitsu
Banned
Enthusiast
19 reports 6 warnings 3 bans not showing any sign of improvement and not willing to discuss anything
These next 18 months will very interesting to watch.
I will be honest, I'm glad Nintendo's taking their time to approach this right.
My question is how would they approach this, because popular consensus would be to push the new hardware into being more of a console. So hardware that is much more powerful, focuses more on the display technology than anything else. I don't think that's the right approach.
But we're going to have to see what Nintendo actually does.
My question is how would they approach this, because popular consensus would be to push the new hardware into being more of a console. So hardware that is much more powerful, focuses more on the display technology than anything else. I don't think that's the right approach.
But we're going to have to see what Nintendo actually does.
- Pronouns
- he/him
As long as they're fixed on a hybrid machine, it kind of limits how far out they can get beyond standard advances in processing/other internal tech. Switch was the most straightforward Nintendo machine since GameCube and GBA 16 years before. It's basically got to be a single screen 16:9 device with a main control method that works nearly the same when connected to the screen as when used separately.
On the opposite spectrum in me, I would like to see how Nintendo continues to innovate with a new console design.
Instead of a hybrid, maybe they're going to make it even better:
A console where you can take it anywhere you go, and it doesn't have to be a tablet.
Instead of a hybrid, maybe they're going to make it even better:
A console where you can take it anywhere you go, and it doesn't have to be a tablet.
That’s basically a Switch with extra steps and they did do that with the GC.
- Pronouns
- he/him
This makes me think of my ~1990 vision of the future where we'd wear a gaming machine backpack.
Sword Art Online really did predict the future
Making sure your library is playable on the new hardware is more important than ever in the age of GaaS. However that means either keeping people on the technologically inferior Switch versions or updating thousands of games and support for cloud saves for the better versions available elsewhere. A costly proposition especially for the indies currently on eShop.
You have to make it worthwhile for developers and fair for players.
I wouldn't mind double dipping on many of those games if I don't have to beat them all over again for the 3rd time.
You have to make it worthwhile for developers and fair for players.
I wouldn't mind double dipping on many of those games if I don't have to beat them all over again for the 3rd time.
there's no reason to update all those games when the next switch will be BC
So forever stuck with inferior versions like I said earlier.
for a majority of the games, that's to be expected. unless they have a long tail or the devs just give a shit, it wouldn't be reasonable to expect games to go beyond their maximum frame rates and resolutions. and that's fine. you got people playing switch games on 4K tvs without issue.
- Pronouns
- he/him
Even if they are stuck with inferior versions games with dynamic resolution should average higher resolutions and fps drops in-game should become less common. While not perfect is what most people expect nowadays from BC systems
Not sure why that really matters with regards to backwards compatibility.
The texture resolutions, pop-in, animation rates, geometry and post-processing are pretty much set in stone unless they drop large patches that include not just the assets but also the menus needed to toggle them. That's not impossible but for free? Devs drop ray-tracing and performance mode patches so stranger things have happened but if it's just the OG Switch code running on better tech that's still far from ideal since Switch versions of tech heavy 3D games is synonymous with 'Vaseline' and 'stutter'.
I'm still unsure as to why any of that matters. Backwards compatibility just means the current platform is compatible with old software from the previous platform, not that the old software necessarily needs to be enhanced on the current platform.
I don't think Nintendo is is at all bothered by the fact that 3rd party content looks or runs worse on their platform vs other competing platforms - it's been their modus operandi for 2 decades.
I don't think Nintendo is is at all bothered by the fact that 3rd party content looks or runs worse on their platform vs other competing platforms - it's been their modus operandi for 2 decades.
devs can change upper bounds on dynamic resolutions. on xbox and playstation, we see devs add toggles specifically for PS5 and Series. for larger devs, it's nothing they haven't already done before and for free. but that's more because games have a longer selling tail that incentivizes these updates
but beyond that, I don't think this is that important. they might have the reputation, but a lot of the bigger games still sold well
Is it though? Games ran well on Gamecube. They are facing better competition from PC and the twins. They still have portability, affordability and now availability in their favor but competitors are starting to chip away at that. Not saying Nintendo is in any danger but the fields they once monopolized are now being democratized.
Yes they can and if it's just a bare-bones BC solution that isn't a hardship. Just a slight disappointment and a reason to keep a PlayStation, Xbox or Steam account current if you want an experience that is easier on the eyes.
- Pronouns
- he/him
Isn’t that the case still nowadays? I don’t see the issue when is already the situation Nintendo is found nowadays
Chip away how? I don’t see the two consoles being any of those. PC has Deck but I don’t think that will ever really be the Switch killer most people think even in the future. Outside that is what exactly that is encroaching on what the Switch is doing.
I just don’t think most people are going to care because even if Nintendo makes a robust BC solution it would still depend on devs/pubs to update their games. As we have seen from big & small alike not all of them will or even want to.
I'm pretty confident Nintendo favors the Switch's success over the Gamecube's failure.
I'm also unsure as to how competitors are supposed chipping away at the Switch - the SteamDeck is not anywhere close to being a Switch killer if that's what you were trying to imply.